Every year, thoroughbred racing attracts thousands of spectators. For most of these spectators, the major attraction lies in paramutuel betting on the outcome of the races and the opportunity to win money. The term "handicapping" generally refers to comparative analysis of the various attributes of the competing racehorses in an attempt to predict which one will win the race. To increase the chances of "playing the horses" successfully, most racing fans rely upon one or more regularly published handicapping devices. Most handicapping devices supply information related to the past performances of the horses.
One such handicapping device is a daily publication that provides past performance data for every horse racing at every track across the United States. The past performance data includes, for each horse, information related to the last six or seven races. The information includes the place of the horse at the finish and its estimated distance behind the next fastest horse, and its place and estimated distance behind the next fastest horse at each quarter mile pole around the racetrack. For instance, if a horse is running third at the quarter mile pole, the number "three" is recorded, along with the distance of the third horse behind the second horse. Each estimated distance is usually given as a number of horse "lengths." If the distance is shorter than a length, the distance may be referred to as "a nose" or a "head." The performance data also includes the elapsed time for the winner to reach the finish line, and the elapsed time of the front running horse at each of the quarter mile poles around the track.
Although the information provided by this particular handicapping device or system may prove beneficial to some bettors, it has two major flaws. These flaws relate to the human limitations in acquiring this type of performance data and the inherent nature of the data that is recorded and used by the system.
To obtain performance data for this handicapping method, each racetrack employs a chart caller who watches the race from the pressbox, through binoculars, and calls out the places of the horses at each of the quarter mile poles along the track. For each horse called, the chart caller also estimates its distance behind the next fastest horse. For the lead horse, the distance ahead of the second place horse is estimated. An assistant located in the pressbox with the chart caller writes down the calls during each race, as the race occurs.
For all practical purposes, thoroughbred racehorses simply run too fast to permit an accurate calling of a race in this manner. Because the horses are often bunched together during a race, horses running further back in the pack will not actually be called until they have passed the reference quarter mile pole. Additionally, some horses may be blocked from the view of the caller and not readily identifiable, thereby further complicating the task of identifying each horse and estimating its distance behind the next fastest horse. Finally, the angle of the caller with respect to the horses at the turns of the racetrack does not lend itself to a high degree of accuracy in judging distances between horses. These factors all produce some degree of inaccuracy in the recorded past performance data used by this handicapping method.
Additionally, some inherent inaccuracy is built into the system because of the dimensional unit used to measure relative positions. In practice, there is some discrepancy as to what is meant by the term "length" when referring to a distance. For some, this term designates the distance from the nose of a horse to the tail of the horse. However, not all horses are the same size, and even for the same horse, this distance varies during the stride as the horse extends its forward legs and then gathers its rear legs. In effect, lack of a concise definition for the unit of measure commonly used in assessing performance produces another degree of inaccuracy.
In addition to the above factors, which generally relate to the human limitations of this handicapping system, another major flaw associated with this handicapping system results from the fact that the recorded, past performance data is based upon the position of a racehorse relative to other horses. The use of relative performance data creates the impression that it provides information as to a horse's capability of advancing through the pack as a race progresses. However, this is not always true. In some instances, relative position data does not readily provide an indication of whether a horse is actually gaining on or closing the distance to the lead horse. As an example, a horse may be in third place, one length behind the second place horse, both at the first quarter mile pole and the second quarter mile pole. Furthermore, both the second and third place horses could be gaining on the first place horse during this distance. Nevertheless, a race fan would not necessarily realize this fact unless he or she located the relative position data related to the first and second horses for that particular race, or calculated the split times of the lead horse for that quarter mile. Although this information may be obtainable, it is not readily available for quick and easy comparison of a large number of horses competing in upcoming races.
In short, relative position information from past races tends to overemphasize one aspect of a horse's performance, i.e., its place in the pack and its proximity to another horse. As a result, even if the called places and distances are accurate, the relative position information provided by this system is only moderately helpful in accurately predicting the winners of horse races.
Other attempts have been made to provide accurate performance data to assist racing fans in handicapping thoroughbred racehorses. One such attempt is disclosed in Oswald et al. U.S. Pat. No. 4,142,680, a patent which describes a system for indicating the elapsed time for each racehorse in a race from the start to each of a succession of stations, such as furlong posts, along a racetrack. In order to obtain elapsed time for all the horses at the successive stations, each horse has a transmitter mounted to its forehead. Each transmitter transmits a radio frequency that identifies that particular horse, and that frequency is received by a receiving loop buried in the track as the horse passes thereabove, within reception range. There is one receiving loop for each transmitter, or for each horse in the race. The receiving loops communicate to a detector to generate output signals which identify the horse and the elapsed time of the race for the horse to reach that particular location of the track. As an end result, the object of the system is to provide split times for each racehorse at each of the receiving loop locations along the racetrack.
While the information obtained with this system may be helpful to race fans in handicapping racehorses, this particular method for obtaining split time information has not proved successful. First, depending upon race conditions, a transmitter mounted to a horse will be subjected to all of the same environmental conditions that the horse experiences during a race. Namely, depending upon the condition of the track, the transmitter is susceptible to being covered by mud, dirt, or sod, any of which could impair or ruin transmitting capability.
Second, regardless of size, mounting a transmitter to a racehorse represents additional weight that a horse must carry, and one more piece of equipment that must be checked by the jockey prior to the race. Many jockeys and trainers object to the addition of any extra equipment on the horse.
Third, the use of transmitters and receivers to obtain split times would produce radio interference and most likely be objected to by the Federal Communication Commission, particularly if a racetrack is geographically near an airport, where radio interference could be disastrous.
Fourth, it would cost a great deal of money and take a substantial amount of time to bury the receiving loops underneath the racetrack at each of the stations. This would have to be done in the off-season, and extensive maintenance to the receiving loops during the racing season would probably not be possible. Yet, the success of the system would depend upon proper functioning of all the loops throughout the entire season.
Finally, once the receiving loops were in place, they would only be able to provide split time information for that particular location along the racetrack. If the rail of the racetrack were to be moved inwardly or outwardly along the turns, which has been required in some states for safety reasons, the distance around the track will change. However, the locations where split times are measured would still remain the same. As a result, either the loops would have to be dug up and moved, at significant expense to the racetrack, or the distance variations of the track would have to simply be ignored.
If the distance variations were ignored, and if this occurred at enough tracks in the system, the recorded split times would simply not be legitimately comparable. As a result, the split time information obtained by this system would probably not be particularly useful in predicting winners.
For these reasons, this Oswald system has apparently not been successful. Applicant is not aware of any racetrack that employs this method for handicapping racehorses.
Goodling U.S. Pat. No. 2,819,942 discloses a photo-finish camera that records the places of horses at a finish line. A photofinish camera includes a lens which focuses the viewed image through a slit and onto the film. The camera is pointed at the racetrack, and the slit is aligned along the finish line. In order to work, the film must move past the slit at a constant speed, about the same speed that the horses are running, but in an opposite direction. Otherwise, the lengths of the horses will appear distorted. The film used in the Goodling camera includes numerical information along an edge thereof. For each horse, the number on the film corresponds to the elapsed time for that horse to reach the finish line of the race.
Photo-finish cameras of this type, with elapsed time information, have proved useful in obtaining information related to a horse's performance at a given track for a particular distance. However, they are not particularly accurate in comparing different performances of the same horse at various tracks, or for comparing the performances of other horses that have previously raced at other tracks.
This is partially due to the idiosyncrasies among various racetracks in measuring an actual race distance. Most racetracks do not start the official race clock when the horses leave the gate, but when they reach the next closest furlong pole. A furlong is an eighth of a mile. The distance of a thoroughbred horse race is usually given according to the number of furlongs. For a mile long race on a race track that is one mile around, the clock starts when the horses initially reach the finish line, several seconds out of the gate. The official clock then runs until the horses complete one entire lap. In other words, at the "official" beginning of the race, the horses already have a running start. While most tracks are relatively consistent in placement of the starting gate with respect to the closest furlong pole or quarter mile pole, for a particular distance, this distance may vary substantially from track to track, despite the fact that the "official" distances would all be considered the same. Therefore, assuming that the official distances of the racetracks are accurate, the horses actually run different distances at different tracks, depending on the location of the starting gate. For a horse that is a "closer", i.e., one that finishes strong, this discrepancy could have a tremendous effect on the horse's finish, particularly at a racetrack with a longer gate to finish distance.
While it would seem that this problem could be solved by simply locating the starting gate at the finish line, such relocation would present additional problems in moving the starting gate off of the track in sufficient time to enable the horses to run through after a lap has been completed. Additionally, all racetracks would have to agree to this change and to the use of a standard distance, a prospect which does not seem likely. Moreover, this solution becomes even more impractical when considering the multiplicity of racing distances that are used by racetracks. Applicant is aware of one racetrack that regularly uses twenty four different racing distances.
Another discrepancy among racetracks further negates the usefulness of such finish line data. Applicant has learned that, for some racetracks in North America, the "official" distance around the tracks does not match the actual distance around the track. Therefore, if two horses ran exactly one lap around two racetracks with the same "official" lap distance, there is a very real possibility that these two horses would actually run different distances. As a result, the finish times for these horses at the two different racetracks would probably not be legitimately comparable for accurate handicapping. With multiple racetracks, this inaccuracy compounds.
In short, while a photofinish camera of the type described in the Goodling patent may be somewhat helpful in assessing the relative performances of horses that have performed at the same racetrack over the same distance, the information is not particularly helpful for predicting how a horse will run at other racetracks, for the "same" or different distances, or against horses that have run at other racetracks.